Easy. What Romney did (and wanted to do) was very different from Obamacare.

As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.

At 7/7/2012 10:48:11 AM, JamesMadison wrote:Easy. What Romney did (and wanted to do) was very different from Obamacare.

Not so easy. Conservatives are supposed to be against socialism. Any justification they make for Romneycare destroys their core principles of working with the free market.

+1. No Obamacare or Romneycare

+1. Government needs to STAY OUT! The smaller the governmnent, the better

-_-

Government is good.

The current private health insurance system, which is overall of mediocre quality of care and is a massive plethora of options and layers of complexity, simply sucks.

The current system is somewhat akin to Stalinism. People who don't contribute enough to the system we live in deserve to get no care, and thus die off. Even though plenty of hard working Americans don't get insurance yet work hard.

Improved Medicare for All, which is yes bigger government, is better than big pharma.

The roles of Government (in my view):

- Strong national defense- Equal Access to Opportunity- Oversight of Financial Institutions and Markets- Providing Investments in Areas to benefit society- Facilitating Economic Development- Protection and Advancement of Public Interest (where market cannot fix)- Providing Assistance to those unable to help themselves

And we pay for this through a fair and simple progressive tax system and some flat payroll taxes. In the current system, the tax revenue isn't being applied to all the right places.

These are some of the heavy burdens that a limited amount of "socialism" has and is in our government.

Unregulated Capitalism is sure as hell not providing any of that.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

The fact is that Romney opposed some of the worst measures like the Medicaid expansion and the employer mandate.

His original vision would have actually expanded the free market, but it was derailed.

As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.

At 7/7/2012 10:48:11 AM, JamesMadison wrote:Easy. What Romney did (and wanted to do) was very different from Obamacare.

Not so easy. Conservatives are supposed to be against socialism. Any justification they make for Romneycare destroys their core principles of working with the free market.

+1. No Obamacare or Romneycare

+1. Government needs to STAY OUT! The smaller the governmnent, the better

-_-

Government is good.

The current private health insurance system, which is overall of mediocre quality of care and is a massive plethora of options and layers of complexity, simply sucks.

The current system is somewhat akin to Stalinism. People who don't contribute enough to the system we live in deserve to get no care, and thus die off. Even though plenty of hard working Americans don't get insurance yet work hard.

Improved Medicare for All, which is yes bigger government, is better than big pharma.

The roles of Government (in my view):

- Strong national defense- Equal Access to Opportunity- Oversight of Financial Institutions and Markets- Providing Investments in Areas to benefit society- Facilitating Economic Development- Protection and Advancement of Public Interest (where market cannot fix)- Providing Assistance to those unable to help themselves

And we pay for this through a fair and simple progressive tax system and some flat payroll taxes. In the current system, the tax revenue isn't being applied to all the right places.

At 7/7/2012 10:48:11 AM, JamesMadison wrote:Easy. What Romney did (and wanted to do) was very different from Obamacare.

Not so easy. Conservatives are supposed to be against socialism. Any justification they make for Romneycare destroys their core principles of working with the free market.

+1. No Obamacare or Romneycare

+1. Government needs to STAY OUT! The smaller the governmnent, the better

-_-

Government is good.

The current private health insurance system, which is overall of mediocre quality of care and is a massive plethora of options and layers of complexity, simply sucks.

The current system is somewhat akin to Stalinism. People who don't contribute enough to the system we live in deserve to get no care, and thus die off. Even though plenty of hard working Americans don't get insurance yet work hard.

Improved Medicare for All, which is yes bigger government, is better than big pharma.

The roles of Government (in my view):

- Strong national defense- Equal Access to Opportunity- Oversight of Financial Institutions and Markets- Providing Investments in Areas to benefit society- Facilitating Economic Development- Protection and Advancement of Public Interest (where market cannot fix)- Providing Assistance to those unable to help themselves

And we pay for this through a fair and simple progressive tax system and some flat payroll taxes. In the current system, the tax revenue isn't being applied to all the right places.

Screw the minimum wage debate. I'll debate you on ANY of the "public welfare" concepts that you proclaimed here. Send me a PM.

Rand doesn't realize that self-interest requires some sort of community to function. Unless systems are in place to check structures created by the elite to constrain other individuals through "voluntary exchanges", individual autonomy is severely limited. Rand's philosophy is on the right track, but she makes a huge mistake when she concludes that egoism is fulfilled through absolute individualism.

At 7/7/2012 10:48:11 AM, JamesMadison wrote:Easy. What Romney did (and wanted to do) was very different from Obamacare.

Not so easy. Conservatives are supposed to be against socialism. Any justification they make for Romneycare destroys their core principles of working with the free market.

+1. No Obamacare or Romneycare

+1. Government needs to STAY OUT! The smaller the governmnent, the better

-_-

Government is good.

The current private health insurance system, which is overall of mediocre quality of care and is a massive plethora of options and layers of complexity, simply sucks.

The current system is somewhat akin to Stalinism. People who don't contribute enough to the system we live in deserve to get no care, and thus die off. Even though plenty of hard working Americans don't get insurance yet work hard.

Improved Medicare for All, which is yes bigger government, is better than big pharma.

The roles of Government (in my view):

- Strong national defense- Equal Access to Opportunity- Oversight of Financial Institutions and Markets- Providing Investments in Areas to benefit society- Facilitating Economic Development- Protection and Advancement of Public Interest (where market cannot fix)- Providing Assistance to those unable to help themselves

And we pay for this through a fair and simple progressive tax system and some flat payroll taxes. In the current system, the tax revenue isn't being applied to all the right places.

Screw the minimum wage debate. I'll debate you on ANY of the "public welfare" concepts that you proclaimed here. Send me a PM.

Rand doesn't realize that self-interest requires some sort of community to function. Unless systems are in place to check structures created by the elite to constrain other individuals through "voluntary exchanges", individual autonomy is severely limited. Rand's philosophy is on the right track, but she makes a huge mistake when she concludes that egoism is fulfilled through absolute individualism.

What are these so called "structures created by the elite?" I find the concept of limiting individual autonomy through anything other than the State as laughable at best.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."